Aren't you again making the assumption that the WC3 DH has no link to Warlocks? Your own ideas are getting. In the way. You are also presupposing a link exists and appear to be overlooking the possibility that having DHs as a Warlock sub spec would simply be a gameplay mechanic that in lore is meaningless.

How is lore meaningless when the classes we got have been rooted in lore? Let's take a look at Death Knights. They are former servants of the Lich King, heroes who were corrupted. This is the same lore that existed since Warcraft 3. There is even an elaborate starting zone dedicated to showing how the Death Knights become a playable class, all of which is based on pre-existing lore of what a Death Knight is. They did not create new lore for a new class, they built upon what was already there and branched it out to become something greater. Even when you choose your race, your character is clearly undead. You are playing a former servant of the Lich King.

The assumption that DHs have no connection to Warlocks is unwarranted. They may have a link. They may not. There is no justification to state either outcome as a fact. DHs have no lore, no history, no traditions. Their connection, or lack thereof, to Warlocks is unknown.

How do Demon Hunters have no lore? Have you played Warcraft 3 or the Frozen Throne? Have you done the Demon Hunter-centric quests in TBC and Cataclysm? There is ample lore available, and this includes the Ritual blinding and training to become one.

This comes down to a very basic question

Why include a Demon Hunter spec if we remove all association with Demon Hunters.

This isn't about wanting a Warlock melee spec. This isn't about wanting Demon Hunter gameplay mechanics. It's about wanting to play a Demon Hunter. If you remove all association with previous lore, then what is the point in calling it a Demon Hunter in the first place? You achieve nothing by using the name, because it has no association with the very Hero Class that people want to play. The only thing you have similar are spell names, which frankly has no bearing on anything. Mages have Frost Nova and Frost armor, Lich spells. You aren't going to call Frost spec Mages a Lich now are you?

Who is to say that a Demon Hunter is not simply a Warlock who chose to focus his warlock abilities on melee rather than casting?...just like a BattleMage and Mages.

There is no lore of what a BattleMage is. It's a class that has no pre-existing lore, so Blizzard is completely free to create any lore they need to support such a class. My parallel is if they took your Battle Mage idea and called it 'Death Knight'. Do you believe this would not create any identity issues?

TLDR; If you want Warlocks to become Demon Hunters using new lore that ignores everything we knew about them, then why bother calling them Demon Hunters? What is the reason why people want playable Demon Hunters? It's because they want to play as the ritualistically blinded, fel-magic using badass as depicted from Warcraft 3.

And the entirety of it, as well. Most everything else was new in WotLK. They did create new lore for the Death Knights. That it builds on what they already had doesn't change that.

Originally Posted by Thimagryn

How do Demon Hunters have no lore? Have you played Warcraft 3 or the Frozen Throne? Have you done the Demon Hunter-centric quests in TBC and Cataclysm? There is ample lore available, and this includes the Ritual blinding and training to become one.

WC3 and TFT had Illidan. That's about it. He wasn't even a regular demon hunter, either.

The DH quests in TBC and Cata don't tell us a terrible lot about them, either. Certainly not enough to qualify as "ample lore". At best, we have a rough outline.

The Demon Hunter is mostly popular because of its presence as a Hero class in Warcraft 3. What reason is there to implement the class if we are to forsake everything we know about them?

I am open to seeing new lore being created for them, but the very idea of having them implemented as a Warlock spec denies the basic concepts of what we know to be the Warcraft 3 Demon Hunter archetype. Warlocks are not typically 'Shadowy Warriors', do not perform any rituals to gain their powers, and more importantly are inaccessable to the very class that defines them; Night Elves. It may sound like stubbornness and rigid-thinking, but really there is no reason to call a melee-Warlock spec something that it isn't.

This has happened in the past, with the Warcraft 2 incarnation of the Death Knight (Necrolyte souls encased in the body of dead knights) and the Warcraft 3 Death Knight (Paladins corrupted by Arthas and the Scourge). Even though they share names, there is a clear distinction between the two. The Death Knight you play in WoW is clearly the latter of the two types. When you are applying this to a Warlock spec, then there is also going to be a distinction between the Warcraft 3 Demon Hunter (Shadowy Warriors who ritually blind themselves to gain demonic powers) and WoW Demon Hunters (Warlocks who specialize in Demon Hunting).

The entire point of why Demon Hunters are popular is because of people want to play as the former, not the latter. Why can't they be one and the same? Because the Warcraft 3 representation of a Demon Hunter involves a specific motive and an act of permanence which the Warlock class would be unable to properly portray due to game mechanics. You can't ritually blind your character for one spec only to have your eyes come back when you swap back to Affliction. This is like if you made Death Knights an offshoot of the Warrior class, it wouldn't make sense to be dead in one spec and alive in another.

Talen, it's obvious you don't understand what we're saying. Just give it a rest, okay? Your argument is basically "Well they CAN do this."

Yes. And yours is "They can't because it doesn't agree with how I see Demon Hunters".

However, what we are saying is that demon hunters aren't warlocks

An irrelvance. A Paladins isn't a Blood Knight either. A Barbarian warrior isn't a trained soldier. The Gnomish Priest isn't a caster but a surgeon. The Shadow priest is very different in outlook and philosophy from a Holy priest.

It doesn't matter that Demon Hunters may or may not be Warlocks because the game is already filled with classes that aren't the class they are represented by. The DH shares moves, it shares a demonic theme and that in itself is enough to justify a Warlock sub spec should Blizzard go that route. It may not be to your liking. It may not be to your vision. It may not be a perfect representation of the class. All of that is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Thimagryn

How is lore meaningless when the classes we got have been rooted in lore?

When its the personal background lore that relates to the classes history, traditions, motivations, etc. All of which is meaningless.

They did not create new lore for a new class, they built upon what was already there and branched it out to become something greater. Even when you choose your race, your character is clearly undead. You are playing a former servant of the Lich King.

You refer to lore created specifically for that class, for use within the game and XPac. Before then, DKs existed in game, in WC3 and as part of the old orcish Horde - which were very different. For the DH, you don't even that much background lore because while they existed, there wasn't much interaction.

How do Demon Hunters have no lore? Have you played Warcraft 3 or the Frozen Throne? Have you done the Demon Hunter-centric quests in TBC and Cataclysm? There is ample lore available, and this includes the Ritual blinding and training to become one.

Yes. I have. No it doesn't. You interact with some but you don't get much knowledge about them

Why include a Demon Hunter spec if we remove all association with Demon Hunters.

From what I gather, you are saying Warlocks are already Demon Hunters, given that you are willing to make the idea fit. You say, 'It doesn't matter that Demon Hunters may or may not be Warlocks'. If your definition of Demon Hunter is a class that uses demonic powers and can turn into demons and use swords, then a Demonology Warlock already fits your description. If this is what you believe, then it is what you believe.

Demon Hunters are defined Hero class within the Warcraft lore. If people just want to play as a Melee-oriented Warlock, then Melee Warlock specs could be called 'Guardian' or 'Enhancement'.

Lore is created for new Classes, not specs. Whether you are a Resto Druid or a Guardian Druid or a Feral Druid, you are still a Druid. Blood Knights, Gnome Priests as 'Surgeons', 'Barbarian' Warriors... are all (Races combo'd with) classes. If you create a new spec for an existing class, there is no lore involved. It is a Specialization.

A 'Demon Hunter' Warlock would never be a true Demon Hunter. They would always be Warlocks who specialize in Demon Hunting. This is no more than a nod to the Heroes people want to play.

Tanking spec. Variety of play. To bring Demon Hunters into the game in a manner that doesn't tick Warlock players off by having them share a move list and a unique identity. To bring a cloth tank fully into the game - again, variety of style.

From what I gather, you are saying Warlocks are already Demon Hunters, given that you are willing to make the idea fit.

Essentially? Warlocks are already more than halfway to being Demon Hunters and Blizzards Glyph of Demon Hunting would have been an even stronger step in that direction.

Right now - Warlocks aren't Demon Hunters. They lack too many basic moves to fill the role. Nor, lorewise, are they DHs at all.

But - you give Warlocks a stance or Glyph, and add in a small amount of basic abilities and you do end up with a Demon Hunter. A WoW style Demon Hunter. There simply are not that many gameplay differences between the specs and Warlocks already have spec specific resource system should that be needed.

Blizzard COULD make a standalone spec. But the ground work in gameplay is already there for a Warlock sub-spec. The possibility they are totally different classes isn't an issue, because the lore isn't there to say that is the case. They already share enough that subspeccing is a viable option.

You say, 'It doesn't matter that Demon Hunters may or may not be Warlocks'. If your definition of Demon Hunter is a class that uses demonic powers and can turn into demons and use swords, then a Demonology Warlock already fits your description. If this is what you believe, then it is what you believe.

Demon Hunters are defined Hero class within the Warcraft lore. If people just want to play as a Melee-oriented Warlock, then Melee Warlock specs could be called 'Guardian' or 'Enhancement'.

They could. Why bother? You end up with a melee orientated Warlock spec that looks just like a Demon Hunter and shares essentially the same move list.

Lore is created for new Classes, not specs. Whether you are a Resto Druid or a Guardian Druid or a Feral Druid, you are still a Druid. Blood Knights, Gnome Priests as 'Surgeons', 'Barbarian' Warriors... are all (Races combo'd with) classes. If you create a new spec for an existing class, there is no lore involved. It is a Specialization.

You see a Gnomish surgeon....someone who uses scalpels and drugs, operates, and so on....as having the same lore and backstory as a priests who receives healing powers from the Gods and casts them as spells? The barbarian warrior who wades into battle the same as a disciplined soldier attached to a city guard? A Blood Knight who willingly "stole" the Light from a Naaru as having the same motivations as a Paladin who sees his calling as a public duty and service? That the tradition and lore for a Shadow priest are the same as a Holy Priest of the Light? Or a Tauren who calls upon An'she has the same story as a human who calls upon the light?

Lore is attached as needed. Sometimes the same spec represents avatars with very different stories, lores and traditions. And sometimes they don't. Given that, the Demon Hunter spec could represent a Warlock with a melee focus just as easily as it could represent a true Demon Hunter. Or even both.

A 'Demon Hunter' Warlock would never be a true Demon Hunter. They would always be Warlocks who specialize in Demon Hunting. This is no more than a nod to the Heroes people want to play.

Unless Blizzard defines a Demon Hunter as someone who studied (formally, informally, or whatever) Warlock magics and focussed them into melee. Or a meleer who augments his abilities with Warlock style magics. Which, so far, is just about what they have done when creating DH NPCs.

I know you really want DHs to be a standalone class and they'd be done better that way in several aspects, with a clearer focus. But Blizzard already has player classes which share differing and even contradictory lore between specs or have the same class represent what are technically different classes. That is why the lore argument doesn't work to bar the Warlocks form a DH sub spec. Even if it didn't fit, Blizzard would either ignore that or manipulate the lore so it did. And there is nothing in gameplay that would forbid a Warlock from taking on the role either...and much to say it should.

Look at what Illidan does in the 4.3 Well of Eternity 5 man and tell me that's not rogue like. That's a demon hunter basically. I find shadowstep and shadowstrike very demon hunteresque. The only time we've seen a demon hunter outside of the Illidari or the Dark Embrace is Thalipedes, whose origins and affiliations are unknown, and then we have a high ranking demon hunter general in the Kaldorei army leading forces at the Cenarion Hold in Silithus. Personally I always thought fury warriors were more demon hunter than rogues, because they get in your face and wield massive blades, demon hunters don't hide and ambush, they are wardancers.

After Illidan absorbs the skull of Guldan, you get into territory that is warlock-ish. But that's not really very demon huntery but for the fact in WC3 he was a template for the hero class. He couldn't metamorph until the skull, which in WOW lore was about only a decade ago, after 10,000 years of being a demon hunter.

But Blizzard has fucked up there with their own lore, because apparently the demon hunters in WOW we've seen can use demon form.

It's a cluster fuck, and Blizzard will hopefully retcon and embellish it to the point it makes sense. They are going to be using the Dark Embrace for more, they have to after what they've introduced there.

They are fleet footed and nimble, acrobatic. They are dark and shadowy anti heroes with dark and shadowy magics aesthetic wise used in their attacks. They are dual wielding melee fighters. Blizzard gave rogues warglaives and the Cursed Vision because they felt rogues fit the closest, but then someone thought it would be a cool idea to give warlocks the ability to metamorph purely as a "hey this is cool" present for demon hunter fans. It's a clusterfuck of stuff that was just made up as they went along.

The big question I think they need to make clear is why the hell are the Dark Embrace pretending to look like Illidan? I think it's fucked up and stupid the way the Warcraft 3 manual made them all seem like some ancient clandestine warrior cult, but then Richard Knaak writes a book where all of Illidan's visual appearance and abilities were forced on him by circumstance. Making demon hunters nothing but Illidan wannabes, which I think is bullshit.

They need to embellish or retcon that, and make demon hunters based on some kind of ancient Kaldorei warrior cult or group, which Illidan was wearing the vestments of, which is why Demon Hunters dress like Illidan. There's not much time between Illidan getting his powers and then being put in prison for ten thousand years to have begun training or establishing the Dark Embrace.

So where in the hell did the Dark Embrace come from? Blizzard needs to decide, and I hope they do it soon.

They are fleet footed and nimble, acrobatic. They are dark and shadowy anti heroes with dark and shadowy magics aesthetic wise used in their attacks. They are dual wielding melee fighters. Blizzard gave rogues warglaives and the Cursed Vision because they felt rogues fit the closest, but then someone thought it would be a cool idea to give warlocks the ability to metamorph purely as a "hey this is cool" present for demon hunter fans. It's a clusterfuck of stuff that was just made up as they went along.

The big question I think they need to make clear is why the hell are the Dark Embrace pretending to look like Illidan? I think it's fucked up and stupid the way the Warcraft 3 manual made them all seem like some ancient clandestine warrior cult, but then Richard Knaak writes a book where all of Illidan's visual appearance and abilities were forced on him by circumstance. Making demon hunters nothing but Illidan wannabes, which I think is bullshit.

They need to embellish or retcon that, and make demon hunters based on some kind of ancient Kaldorei warrior cult or group, which Illidan was wearing the vestments of, which is why Demon Hunters dress like Illidan. There's not much time between Illidan getting his powers and then being put in prison for ten thousand years to have begun training or establishing the Dark Embrace.

So where in the hell did the Dark Embrace come from? Blizzard needs to decide, and I hope they do it soon.

Rogues are thieves and assassins. Selfish individuals who fight for their own gain.

Demon hunters carved their own eyes out to hunt down the greatest threat to mortals on Azeroth.

Other than the fact that they dual wield glaives - which to my mind, being swords, has as much to do with Rogues as it would with Warriors, or any sword using class, as 2 out of 3 Rogue specs do not use swords.

It's bothering me lately because 4th spec has been a popular topic of discussion and Demon Hunter keeps coming up as a 4th spec for Rogues, which I not only don't want, I just don't see how it makes sense. Rogues are, you know, thieves and assassins and stuff, not magic adepts that can metamorphose into their inner demons - right?

What do Demon Hunters have to do with wow? Demon hunter fan bois start "lets get blizzards attention threads" "heres my idea for the best video game producers atm". Cmon there just forum posters....

Look at what Illidan does in the 4.3 Well of Eternity 5 man and tell me that's not rogue like.

Blizzard appeared to be moving towards DHs as rogues in TBC....but not since then. Its why a rogue based DH is also a possibility and why many see DHs as connected with rogues.

Ever since then, however, its Warlocks who have been given the DH treatment.

and then we have a high ranking demon hunter general in the Kaldorei army leading forces at the Cenarion Hold in Silithus.

He ain't a DH.

After Illidan absorbs the skull of Guldan, you get into territory that is warlock-ish. But that's not really very demon huntery but for the fact in WC3 he was a template for the hero class. He couldn't metamorph until the skull, which in WOW lore was about only a decade ago, after 10,000 years of being a demon hunter.

Illidan is not the only DH we have access and while you might think it strange for those to have the ability, you also can't call it a mistake of lore without some lore to contradict it.

=.= sigh. I will need to say this yet again, because somebody to ignorant enough to look at the pictures I posted, the Armor she wears it WC3 is frakkin Leather! In wow, they changed in. Congrats. And I still proved my point in making my rogue look like she is wearing plate.

Yig; Honestly, the canon stuff we know about illidan is simply written and wc3. I dont take well of eternity as full canon, because if they do, then they retcon alot of stuff. This includes them saying, oh, Illidan had Metamorphosis before the Skull, which we know from the books and wc3, he did not.

If they do say that the instance is full canon on what happened, then we have a bunch of shadow magic and a few fel spells (just to let you realize, affliction is shadow, unholy is shadow, shadow priests are shadow before you call me oh rogues). The spells we have from this are Wall of shadows, which deters Demons for some odd reason. We have Return to the Shadows (Mass shadowcloak), Shadowcloak (not stealth. Only stealth to demon, as I quote " Illidan's magic covers himself in flickering shadow, hiding himself from the demons." Nothing about humanoids, unlike a rogue who can stealth from everything), then we have Absorb Fel Energy, we Have Metamorphosis, Immolation, Demon rush (charge), and Darklance (conjures a spear of dark energy). So he has a mixture of shadow, fire, and Fel spells. >.>

So basically by stating those things... Warlocks? No, they are not warlocks, just like they are not Rogues. Both classes have similarities to "demon hunters" but they are not demon hunters.

Rogues are "For rogues, the only code is the contract, and their honor is purchased in gold. Free from the constraints of a conscience, these mercenaries rely on brutal and efficient tactics. Lethal assassins and masters of stealth, they will approach their marks from behind, piercing a vital organ and vanishing into the shadows before the victim hits the ground. Rogues can dip their weapons in paralyzing toxins that render foes unable to defend themselves. These silent stalkers wear leather armor so they can move unencumbered, ensuring that they land the first strike.
With the rogue’s poisons and speed, the first strike is often the last step before the killing blow"

Warlocks are "In the face of demonic power, most heroes see death. Warlocks see only opportunity. Dominance is their aim, and they have found a path to it in the dark arts. These voracious spellcasters summon demonic minions to fight beside them. At first, they command only the service of imps, but as a warlock’s knowledge grows, seductive succubi, loyal voidwalkers, and horrific felhunters join the dark sorcerer’s ranks to wreak havoc on anyone who stands in their master’s way. Warlocks can ignite distant enemies in searing flame, send them fleeing in terror and pain, or afflict them with corrupting diseases and curses that steal the victim’s vitality.
These practitioners of the profane are feared across Azeroth, and many who have felt their wrath now prefer to fight alongside a warlock than against one."

These two are both the canon descriptions of who they are. Both are selfish self servant power hungry killers. Neither are Demon hunters, according to the rpg book that is considered UNCANON. Saddly, the only demon hunters we have to go off of are all the ones we kill at bt, and illidan, the other 4 are: Loramus Thalipedas who had 2 felhunter pets, Altruis the Sufferer who does nothing but complain and send you off to kill things for him, Feronas Sindweller who shows us what he sees and is quite the student of Illidan, and Telarius Voidstrider a metamorphing ghost dh with the "dark embrace" quest item. Otherwise we have one be dh that went insane and his personal demon helps attacking you (ssc), another demon hunter at bt who shows promise till he seeked more power since he is a fel addicted blood elf (varedis). These Demon hunters are the only canon things we have to the class, besides wc3 and the novels. The RPG book is uncanon.

Now Vish Kozus, the "demon hunter" you have pictured is not a demon hunter, only suspected of being one by players. He is simply the Captain of the Guard. He is not even using warglaives, that we see many sentinals using, but rather cutlasses.

But, if you want to call rogues your dhs, through "They are fleet footed and nimble, acrobatic", using Cursed vision of Sargares, and Warglaives. I will tell you a little secret, Monks can too, and they are fleet footed, nimble, and far more acrobatic than your rogues.

oh god, I figured it out. Blizzard is making Monks Demon hunters. That is their fourth spec!

=.= sigh. I will need to say this yet again, because somebody to ignorant enough to look at the pictures I posted, the Armor she wears it WC3 is frakkin Leather! In wow, they changed in. Congrats. And I still proved my point in making my rogue look like she is wearing plate.

Wardens can also be considered a type of bounty hunter, which fits the Rogue's archetype.

Let's also not forget that incorporating the Warden into the Rogue class would go a long way towards revitalizing the class. Rogues are a dying class.

I mained a Rogue for a very, very long time and people always said that about us. It's really not true. Every now and then it becomes a flavor of the month when they make balance changes and you can one-shot ambush people in lowbie bg's, but the people who are Rogues are Rogues and always will be Rogues.

That said, I think the best 4th spec for Rogues would be a Swashbuckler tank spec. Ever watch The Count of Monte Cristo? Robin Hood? Errol Flynn in the old pirate movies? Could be a dual-wielding swordsmith who holds aggro by frustrating enemies by dodging, taunting, and confusing them into making stupid mistakes, always landing on their feet and weaseling their way out. I think that would probably be the most logical way to do a 4th spec for rogues.

Outside of the light armor, and evasive dual-weilding fighting style. Demon hunters have abilities that are used to disable large demons, and cut through armies of lesser demons using their own taint against them.

They're also exclusive to Night Elves. (Though, the same could be said about Druids pre-WoW.)

They're also exclusive to Night Elves. (Though, the same could be said about Druids pre-WoW.)

That's not true. One, we've seen belves can become DH and the RPG said, although non-canon still most likely holds true as there is nothing in the class that would hold back any race except for gameplay reasons - like worgen and goblins can't be monks cause of their gated starter zone.

From wowpedia: "Other races can become demon hunters, but such individuals are unheard of. Any member of another race who is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to join the fight against the demonic invaders must find a night elf or blood elf demon hunter to assist him in the initiation ceremonies.[2]"

That is your CANON armor for Wc3, not the artwork that you have. What I posted still stands true.

Originally Posted by Poochy

That's not true. One, we've seen belves can become DH and the RPG said, although non-canon still most likely holds true as there is nothing in the class that would hold back any race except for gameplay reasons - like worgen and goblins can't be monks cause of their gated starter zone.

From wowpedia: "Other races can become demon hunters, but such individuals are unheard of. Any member of another race who is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to join the fight against the demonic invaders must find a night elf or blood elf demon hunter to assist him in the initiation ceremonies.[2]"

Rpg books are currently considered uncanon. so it does not hold true for your any race.

There isn't any reason to believe that there is a requirement of innate magical talent to become a Demon Hunter. As far as we know, Illidan has been the only Demon Hunter to have previously been a Magic user prior to becoming a Demon Hunter. While Illidan wasn't born into the Highborne caste, he did become a member to a point.

So in theory, any Race and Class could become a Demon Hunter. However I'd personally limit it to any race that can currently be a Warlock as well as Night Elves. Only way that you could spin it so that races like Draenei, who're staunchly against anything demonic, is that they attune themselves to the light in such a way that it allows them to sense Demons, similar to Demon Hunters. Perhaps instead of taking the Demon's spirit within them, they keep the Demon's spirit within some sort of container.

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand
"You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity." - Snatch